Talk:Johns Hopkins–Maryland lacrosse rivalry/GA1

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Overall the article is pretty good, however I found a couple things that need fixing:

  • The lead needs to be expanded.
  • "The two teams first played in 1895 and met six more times through 1923. In those early matches, Johns Hopkins scored a combined 60 points to Maryland's three. In 1924, Maryland fielded its first varsity-level lacrosse team, which defeated Hopkins, 4–2, but the United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association (USILA) awarded the Blue Jays the co-national championship (along with Syracuse)" I'd like to see a citation for these facts.
  • It is already cited and supported by the current ref (CR10), which says:

    "[Hopkins] began its rivalry with the Maryland Agricultural College in 1895. The teams met seven times between 1895 and 1923 with the Blue Jays winning all seven by a combined score of 60-3. Maryland elevated its program to varsity status in 1924... In 1924 Maryland knocked off the Blue Jays, but Hopkins walked away with the USILA National Championship..."

  • "In the 1950s, the two teams won a combined six national championships, with Maryland dominating the first part of the decade and Johns Hopkins the latter." This sentence doesn't seem right, since Maryland seemed to be the main dominator in the 50s based on a read through the paragraph. Perhaps saying Maryland was dominant in the 50s and Hopkins in the 60s?
  • Maryland beat Hopkins in 1950, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 and tied in 1952. JHU beat Maryland in 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960. Maryland then had a four-game winning streak to start the 1960s. Source for this is CR10, the text and table at the bottom. Strikehold (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • "Since then, the Blue Jays and Terrapins have appeared in the finals a combined 27 times and have met each other in the finals three times." Cite needed.

I'll put this on hold and give you a few days to fix this. Wizardman 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply